Find Nearby Plumbers In Greenville, South Carolina

This contractor exhibits a deeply problematic pattern of taking upfront payments and failing to complete work, with multiple customers reporting non-responsiveness, excuses, and refusal to refund. While three older reviews (2020-2021) praise responsiveness and technical skill, the three recent reviews (2023-2024) describe systematic fraud-like behavior including demanding thousands upfront, abandoning projects, and ghosting clients. The stark contrast between older and recent reviews suggests either a significant deterioration in business practices or a change in ownership/management. The preponderance of evidence points to serious reliability and ethical issues that overshadow any positive historical performance.

• CRITICAL: Three recent reviews (Feb 2024, Sept 2023 x2) describe patterns consistent with fraud: demanding large upfront payments, non-completion of work, non-responsiveness, and refusal to refund. One reviewer explicitly states 'this isn't the first time he's done this.'
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews are 3-4 years old (2020-2021); negative reviews are recent (2023-2024). This suggests a significant deterioration in service quality or business practices over time.
• PAYMENT ABUSE PATTERN: All three negative reviews specifically mention upfront payment demands ($1,500-$4,000+) followed by non-completion and non-refund. This is a red flag for predatory business practices.
• RESPONSIVENESS CONTRADICTION: Older reviews praise quick response times; recent reviews describe ghosting and non-responsiveness. This inconsistency warrants caution.

This score should be treated with HIGH caution due to a stark temporal divide: older reviews are positive but outdated (3-4 years), while recent reviews describe serious fraud-like patterns. The WW Score of 42.3 reflects the weight of recent evidence, but potential customers should be aware that this contractor may pose significant financial risk based on current behavior patterns.

Jason's business shows a severe and consistent pattern of pricing deception across multiple recent reviews (2022-2024). Three detailed complaints describe a practice of quoting high estimates, then charging the full quote despite performing significantly less work than originally outlined. While older reviews (2007) and one recent review (2024) acknowledge competent workmanship and responsive service, the repeated pattern of overcharging and lack of transparent pricing fundamentally undermines trust. The contractor's professionalism is compromised by dishonest billing practices, despite technical competence in completing repairs.

• CRITICAL: Three independent reviews (2022-2024) describe identical deceptive pricing pattern — quoting high, finding easier solution, charging original quote anyway. This is not coincidence but systematic practice.
• Two extremely old positive reviews (2007, 2015) lack detail and may not reflect current business practices. Recent pattern shows significant deterioration.
• One review (2024) explicitly states contractor 'used to be honest' and 'has changed,' corroborating a timeline of declining ethics.
• Evidence of taking advantage of customer vulnerability (emergency hot water heater situation, urgent leak repair).
• Lack of upfront pricing transparency mentioned explicitly in 2024 review.

This score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence due to consistent corroboration across multiple independent recent reviews describing the same deceptive practice, though the small sample size (5 reviews) and age disparity of positive reviews introduce some uncertainty.

This contractor has a deeply polarized review profile. Two positive reviews praise honesty, fair pricing, and knowledgeability, but the single 1-star review is extraordinarily detailed and damaging — alleging price deception, fabricated receipts, installation of an incorrectly sized part using improvised lubricant, a broken diverter left inside the pipe, refusal to provide an invoice, and subsequent blocking of the customer. The negative review directly contradicts the positive reviews on pricing and honesty, and its level of specificity lends it significant credibility. The two positive reviews are relatively brief and generic by comparison, raising mild concern about their reliability. With only 3 reviews total and one being a severe, well-documented complaint, scores across all dimensions are pulled sharply downward.

• SEVERE COMPLAINT: The 1-star review contains highly specific, credible allegations of price fraud — parts claimed to cost $521 were confirmed by the supplier to cost under $25. This is a serious red flag.
• DECEPTIVE PRICING ALLEGED: The contractor reportedly could not produce a receipt, lied about the supplier's operating hours, and initially refused to provide an invoice.
• FAULTY WORKMANSHIP DOCUMENTED: An incorrectly sized diverter was forced into the pipe using improvised lubricant, broke off inside, and required a second plumber to remove — leaving the customer worse off than before.
• CUSTOMER BLOCKING: After the job, the contractor allegedly blocked the customer across multiple contact channels when she sought a refund or explanation.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The two 5-star reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific job details. They contrast sharply with the highly detailed negative review. Confidence in the positive reviews is reduced.
• RECENCY NOTE: All three reviews are from 2020, making them over 4 years old. No recent reviews are available to assess whether performance has improved or declined.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total. The WW Score should be treated as highly unreliable and not representative of consistent performance.

This WW Score is of very low reliability — it is based on only 3 reviews, one of which contains serious and specific fraud allegations that dramatically outweigh the two brief positive reviews; consumers should exercise significant caution before hiring this contractor.

Panthers Plumbing has a deeply troubled review profile across all four dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated no-call/no-show incidents, an instance of cursing a customer at their workplace, and chronic unresponsiveness — with only one positive reviewer praising responsiveness. Project completion is a critical failure point: multiple reviews describe abandoned jobs, work left incomplete, deposits taken with no work performed, and a customer who had to hire a second plumber to fix Panthers' mistakes. On pricing, the pattern of requesting large upfront deposits followed by non-performance or non-refund is a serious red flag that goes beyond mere pricing concerns into potential fraud. Experience scores marginally higher due to one reviewer praising competent installation work, but this is heavily offset by documented code violations (copper piping on a gas line), improper valve installation, and a plumber who abandoned a job because he did not know how to repair a shower knob.

• SERIOUS PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews describe taking large upfront deposits ($900–$2200) and then failing to complete work or refund money — this is a recurring and consistent pattern suggesting systemic misconduct.
• CODE VIOLATION DOCUMENTED: One reviewer explicitly states Paul used copper piping on a gas tankless water heater, which is not to code, and did not obtain required inspection — a safety and legal concern.
• WORKMANSHIP DEFECT: One reviewer found both hot and cold shutoff valves installed upside down on a Rinnai tankless water heater, discovered two years after installation.
• ABANDONED WORK: At least two reviews describe Paul completely abandoning jobs mid-project and becoming unreachable after partial or full payment was received.
• NO-CALL/NO-SHOW: One reviewer documents four separate no-call/no-show incidents over five weeks before Paul finally appeared, with no apology offered.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most recent reviews (2022 and 2023) are both negative, suggesting problems have persisted or worsened over time. The only positive reviews are from 2019–2020 and are now 4–5+ years old.
• REVIEW SPREAD: Only 2 of 7 reviews are positive (5-star), and both positive reviews are older. The 5 negative reviews span multiple years and describe distinct, specific incidents — this pattern does not suggest fake reviews but does suggest a genuinely poor service record.
• CUSTOMER SAFETY RISK: The combination of code violations, gas line work, and improper installations represents a potential safety hazard to homeowners.

This WW Score is based on 7 reviews with strong cross-dimensional coverage and HIGH confidence on all scored dimensions; the score of 28.4 should be treated as a reliable and conservative reflection of a contractor with serious, documented, and recurring issues across professionalism, project completion, pricing integrity, and workmanship quality.

The review set is deeply mixed, with two positive reviews praising punctuality and professionalism offset by three detailed negative reviews describing serious failures. Project completion is the most heavily penalized dimension: multiple reviewers report work left unfinished, no-shows after promised callbacks, a sewage leak caused by the company's own repair, a rag left in a drain line, and a non-functional gas line installation. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by accounts of poor communication, managers never returning calls, a crappy attitude on a return visit, and a review allegedly being removed from Google. Pricing received explicit criticism in one review citing $1,400 for a simple install and $3,000 total with substandard results, yielding a low score with limited confidence. Workmanship quality is undermined by multiple accounts of incorrect installations requiring third-party correction, though two reviews do describe competent and timely work.

• Three of five reviews are 1-star and contain highly specific, detailed complaints — this pattern is consistent with genuine negative experiences rather than fake reviews.
• The two positive reviews are relatively brief and generic in praise, though they do include some specific details (technician names, scheduling context) that suggest authenticity.
• One reviewer explicitly alleges that Ace Plumbing had an honest Google review removed, which raises concerns about review manipulation and suppression of negative feedback.
• The company is alleged to falsely claim BBB accreditation on their website and HomeAdvisor listing — this is a significant trust and integrity flag.
• Review dates span from 2018 to 2023. The oldest review (2018) is more than 5 years old and carries reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2022–2023) still reflect serious unresolved issues.
• Only 5 reviews total — this is a very small sample size and the WW Score should be treated with caution despite some HIGH confidence dimension labels.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning multiple years, and while the negative reviews are detailed and credible, the small sample size and potential review suppression activity mean this score should be treated as directionally informative but not statistically reliable.

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply concerning picture across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of unanswered calls, abandoned jobs, a screaming and threatening owner, and a son who left mid-job claiming to get parts and never returned. Project completion is nearly non-existent in the negative reviews, with multiple customers left with unfinished work, no water for a weekend, and broken irrigation systems that were never repaired. Experience is explicitly questioned across multiple reviews, with customers noting the son appeared unqualified, inexperienced, and unable to complete basic tasks — and one review revealed the contractor was not even a licensed plumber. The sole positive review (5 stars, mentioning reasonable pricing and clear communication) is a significant outlier and insufficient to offset the overwhelming pattern of failure described by five other reviewers.

• LICENSING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states they contacted the licensing board and discovered the contractor was NOT a licensed plumber. This is a serious legal and safety red flag.
• THREATENING BEHAVIOR: One reviewer reports the owner screamed, cursed, and threatened them over a pricing dispute, and police were contacted. This is an extreme professionalism violation.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: Multiple reviews (2021, 2020) describe the same pattern — son shows up, claims to need parts, leaves, and never returns. This suggests a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• PRICE DECEPTION: One reviewer was quoted a price by the owner and then charged more than double upon job completion, suggesting bait-and-switch pricing behavior.
• RECENCY NOTE: The single positive review is from 2020. Four of the five negative reviews are from 2013–2021, with the most recent negative review from 2021. No reviews exist from the past 12 months, limiting current reliability assessment.
• OUTLIER POSITIVE REVIEW: The one 5-star review is generic in detail compared to the specificity of the negative reviews. While not definitively fake, it should be weighted cautiously given the overwhelming negative pattern.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total. While the pattern is consistent, a larger review base would increase scoring reliability.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence due to a small but highly consistent review set — 5 of 6 reviews describe serious, specific, and recurring failures across all dimensions, and the score of approximately 18 should be treated as a strong warning against hiring this contractor.